The overall thing I'm getting at is, what really is your problem with these people? Rafa in particular. He has the ability to crush shots. He can come up to the net every now and then to finish off a point quickly. He's improved his serve so he can get more aces and service winners. He's beaten many people with 6-0, 6-1, and 6-2 sets, even on hard courts. But you act like it's a bad thing that he has the stamina to be able to play for hours. Yeah, he can push back shots and defend all day and just break down the opponent until they make a ton of unforced errors because they're tired. But he doesn't do that anymore. He hits winners, aces, etc. Will he let a ball go when he can get it? Heck no. Why should he? But I really don't understand what's wrong with that.

Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils I can understand. They are boring to watch for me as well. Especially Simon.

Rafa plays efficient tennis in early rounds. But he plays what many would call "gladiator/last man standing" tennis and what I would call passive tennis in the crunch of a tournament. Murray is worse because he has no desire at all to end a point. If Rafa played efficient tennis in the crunch, I'd have a completely different opinion. But he doesn't. He takes his foot off the throttle and plays a game of attrition. Fortunately, Federer won't engage him in this way, but unfortunately Murray (no options) and Djokovic (extremely versatile) will.

I've been critical of Federer since he was in his Mama's womb, but I have newfound respect for him for continuing to play his game. #1 in the world in 2012 at age 31...hard to argue with that.

To be honest guys, I think we have expressed numerous times what we would like to change in previous posts. No reason to go in circles or to take any of this as an insult of some kind.

I think mentioning of bringing back the speed, slower balls, variety of baseliners is already plenty of the reasons. Thats pretty much what I would like to change in tennis.

Its not about S&V anymore, because in order to have more S&V players you need certain changes which would take a while, and are not so needed. I'm simply talking about the point on 'last man standing ', In my humble opinion that is something I usually avoid watching aka Ferrer-Murray match.Why I didn't like that particular match is simple. I haven't seen any effort by either of them to finish the opponent off. This doesn't involve only hitting winners or rushing to the net. It involves variety which could have been conducted by strategy.

Let me give an example here, if Haas played in the same rhythm vs Simon or Djokovic he would have been crushed by their play. What he did was outsmarting them by the SELECTION of shots from the baseline and the awareness to go to the net. (that's not the same as S&V)So in a way he wasn't mindlessly rushing to the net, he was simply building up points with incredible shot selection. So in a single point, you could have seen top spin shots, flat shots, loopy and flat bh's, slice, drop shots, chip and charge, volleys(not S&V).. Also putting pressure on 2nd serve, receiving it in court while returning with depth.All of the shots used to strategically crush opponent and finish him off.

My point is, it's something we really rarely see on courts nowadays. Players getting in the same rhythm, with no determination to apply strategy or change anything, but all we see is exchanging same shots from the baseline, until some shot goes wide.Those who like this way of tennis, fine. I have nothing against them, so please don't take it as an insult if I don't like it, and don't see the future of tennis heading the way I want it to be headed.

My point here is again, players have to adapt to whatever conditions are, unless the are not safe. The ATP and tournament directors dictate this stuff. Nobody asked Nole, Fed, Rafa what kinda courts they like or want. Nobody asked players about Wimbledon going to slow grass back in 2001 (what was it, can't remember).

Some guys go like 'I hate long rallies', some guys go like 'short points are so boring'. I guess, no matter what, you can't make everyone happy.

My point here is again, players have to adapt to whatever conditions are, unless the are not safe. The ATP and tournament directors dictate this stuff. Nobody asked Nole, Fed, Rafa what kinda courts they like or want. Nobody asked players about Wimbledon going to slow grass back in 2001 (what was it, can't remember).

Some guys go like 'I hate long rallies', some guys go like 'short points are so boring'. I guess, no matter what, you can't make everyone happy.

Diplomatic answer But that's exactly my issue with it. Future players are left with no option but to bow to these 'new' changes and become pretty much one dimensional. Why would any young boy want to play all around or S&V play, while knowing it will do him no good in this 'rough' conditions.

Quote

Some guys go like 'I hate long rallies', some guys go like 'short points are so boring'. I guess, no matter what, you can't make everyone happy.

Exactly! and that's why they need to make a compromise . They need to 'give back' the speed to events that have been seriously slowed down and make everyone happy. That's why it is so important to have a variety on all surfaces. Seriously Wimbledon, IW, Miami are just laughable.

My point here is again, players have to adapt to whatever conditions are, unless the are not safe. The ATP and tournament directors dictate this stuff. Nobody asked Nole, Fed, Rafa what kinda courts they like or want. Nobody asked players about Wimbledon going to slow grass back in 2001 (what was it, can't remember).

Some guys go like 'I hate long rallies', some guys go like 'short points are so boring'. I guess, no matter what, you can't make everyone happy.

I think that over the course of recent year's, we've all been guilty of over analyzing this. By and large, the speed of the court doesn't matter. Last week, Haas *proved* variety isn't a function of court speed at all. Players aren't asked to adapt their games to the courts. What they have to adapt to is the style of play against the guy at the other side of the net.

We return to this discussion again and again because Nadal, Murray, and Ferrer are fixtures in the semis and finals.

Seriously, has anyone complained about the pace of play (however you want to measure it: court speed, length of match) when one of these three aren't on the court?

Seriously, has anyone complained about the pace of play (however you want to measure it: court speed, length of match) when one of these three aren't on the court?

No.

uhm if you are talking about other players on tour, yes they complained. Even you quoted retired Roddick the other day.Haas mentioned many times that changing court speed is hurting his game.

Another example is that many of the UE's vs Ferrer would have been won points if that surface was how it should be.

This is true. Ironically, however, Tommy is playing the best tennis of his life during the slow court era. As I saw it, Tommy lost to Ferrer because he went "Tommy" after the first set. He checked out mentally for an entire set. You just can't do that in the semis. On the other hand, he proved throughout the tournament that the court speed wasn't his enemy, not even against Nole. Tommy, as always, was his own worst enemy. If he wants to blame the court, he will, but he should watch a tape of the match, too. (Dude, I go through the same thing with Almagro. I've learned to accept that it's part of their games.)

Roddick, on the other hand, wasn't a well rounded player so naturally, he would argue for faster courts to hide his deficiencies.

Seriously, has anyone complained about the pace of play (however you want to measure it: court speed, length of match) when one of these three aren't on the court?

No.

uhm if you are talking about other players on tour, yes they complained. Even you quoted retired Roddick the other day.Haas mentioned many times that changing court speed is hurting his game.

Another example is that many of the UE's vs Ferrer would have been won points if that surface was how it should be.

This is true. Ironically, however, Tommy is playing the best tennis of his life during the slow court era. As I saw it, Tommy lost to Ferrer because he went "Tommy" after the first set. He checked out mentally for an entire set. You just can't do that in the semis. On the other hand, he proved throughout the tournament that the court speed wasn't his enemy, not even against Nole. Tommy, as always, was his own worst enemy. If he wants to blame the court, he will, but he should watch a tape of the match, too. (Dude, I go through the same thing with Almagro. I've learned to accept that it's part of their games.)

Roddick, on the other hand, wasn't a well rounded player so naturally, he would argue for faster courts to hide his deficiencies.

Tommy went 'Tommy' during the 2nd set, but he totally regrouped in 3rd, where he had 2 breaks. Only thing he needed to do is confirm at least one by holding his serve. So the biggest problem was 1st serve. What ifs are usually unnecessary but I'm pretty sure if it was regular hc he should have held at least one service game even with his 2nd serve.

He didn't blame the court this time around, but he was generally talking about slowing down the courts is hurting him.

But Tommy's not subject of the topic here. His game allows him to play on any given surface, but there's no doubt what suits him the most. Halle is perfect example, watching him there is just splendid.

Roddick's not alone on his statement. There are plenty of players complaining about it. I'm just saying that these slow courts are hurting the spawn of new generations playing attacking or all around game if you will.

edit:

Quote

Sorry, Luggy, but you can't go out one night (slower conditions) and beat the #1 player in the world then blame the loss in the semis on slow courts.

ˇˇHe didn't blame the court this time around, but he was generally talking about slowing down the courts is hurting him.

Roddick's not alone on his statement. There are plenty of players complaining about it. I'm just saying that these slow courts are hurting the spawn of new generations playing attacking or all around game if you will.

The overall thing I'm getting at is, what really is your problem with these people? Rafa in particular. He has the ability to crush shots. He can come up to the net every now and then to finish off a point quickly. He's improved his serve so he can get more aces and service winners. He's beaten many people with 6-0, 6-1, and 6-2 sets, even on hard courts. But you act like it's a bad thing that he has the stamina to be able to play for hours. Yeah, he can push back shots and defend all day and just break down the opponent until they make a ton of unforced errors because they're tired. But he doesn't do that anymore. He hits winners, aces, etc. Will he let a ball go when he can get it? Heck no. Why should he? But I really don't understand what's wrong with that.

Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils I can understand. They are boring to watch for me as well. Especially Simon.

Rafa plays efficient tennis in early rounds. But he plays what many would call "gladiator/last man standing" tennis and what I would call passive tennis in the crunch of a tournament. Murray is worse because he has no desire at all to end a point. If Rafa played efficient tennis in the crunch, I'd have a completely different opinion. But he doesn't. He takes his foot off the throttle and plays a game of attrition. Fortunately, Federer won't engage him in this way, but unfortunately Murray (no options) and Djokovic (extremely versatile) will.

I've been critical of Federer since he was in his Mama's womb, but I have newfound respect for him for continuing to play his game. #1 in the world in 2012 at age 31...hard to argue with that.

What have you done with the 'real' Babbs????? I KNOW this isn't him talking! I better keep this sentence for future references!

The overall thing I'm getting at is, what really is your problem with these people? Rafa in particular. He has the ability to crush shots. He can come up to the net every now and then to finish off a point quickly. He's improved his serve so he can get more aces and service winners. He's beaten many people with 6-0, 6-1, and 6-2 sets, even on hard courts. But you act like it's a bad thing that he has the stamina to be able to play for hours. Yeah, he can push back shots and defend all day and just break down the opponent until they make a ton of unforced errors because they're tired. But he doesn't do that anymore. He hits winners, aces, etc. Will he let a ball go when he can get it? Heck no. Why should he? But I really don't understand what's wrong with that.

Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils I can understand. They are boring to watch for me as well. Especially Simon.

Rafa plays efficient tennis in early rounds. But he plays what many would call "gladiator/last man standing" tennis and what I would call passive tennis in the crunch of a tournament. Murray is worse because he has no desire at all to end a point. If Rafa played efficient tennis in the crunch, I'd have a completely different opinion. But he doesn't. He takes his foot off the throttle and plays a game of attrition. Fortunately, Federer won't engage him in this way, but unfortunately Murray (no options) and Djokovic (extremely versatile) will.

I've been critical of Federer since he was in his Mama's womb, but I have newfound respect for him for continuing to play his game. #1 in the world in 2012 at age 31...hard to argue with that.

What have you done with the 'real' Babbs????? I KNOW this isn't him talking! I better keep this sentence for future references!

I know what you mean

I think he will always remember Fed as his 'guilty pleasure' considering what's coming to tennis after he retires

Shhh...I only say nice things about the Federer when FFF isn't around. I better stop before my window closes. And you guys better drop it, too! I value my place as the ultimate Fedhater to give it up now because you two are outing me! :mad:

I'll throw something else at you. first of all I love watching Fed. I guess my biggest problem with him were his fans at the time seeing Fed as God. when I say his fans I think about people posting on MTF. It's not Fed's fault that he turned out to be some sort of cult. That episode with Nike making him wear that idiotic golden purse was just so stupid and over the top. I couldn't stop laughing.

I just don't understand why some people need to worship someone or something. Seriously, the moment Djokovic wins, let's say 20 slams and having all army of fans, I won't be that interested. I became his fan because I found him so funny when he was very young. I hate to say this, but I'm not even interested what Nole does at masters any more. I was happy he lost to Haas. bad fan . Nole looks a like blood killer if he feels like it nowadays.

I actually miss that young Nole who was so silly. Nowadays, he is a big star. He doesn't show any emotions on the court any more, he doesn't bounce the ball... he is being super nice to everyone. I do remember very well a young Fed who was so neurotic and then somehow he just calmed down and started winning everything. darn I want what Nole and Fed are having

I think we are all same. It doesn't matter if you you are a janitor or a an engineer or the Queen of England. someone has to do all of those jobs. but somehow, you make more money, you have a bigger house, you are better. not in my book. Again, I'm looking really badly to find some new kid to support. the problem is, I don't have as much time to follow challengers and futures any more.

The overall thing I'm getting at is, what really is your problem with these people? Rafa in particular. He has the ability to crush shots. He can come up to the net every now and then to finish off a point quickly. He's improved his serve so he can get more aces and service winners. He's beaten many people with 6-0, 6-1, and 6-2 sets, even on hard courts. But you act like it's a bad thing that he has the stamina to be able to play for hours. Yeah, he can push back shots and defend all day and just break down the opponent until they make a ton of unforced errors because they're tired. But he doesn't do that anymore. He hits winners, aces, etc. Will he let a ball go when he can get it? Heck no. Why should he? But I really don't understand what's wrong with that.

Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils I can understand. They are boring to watch for me as well. Especially Simon.

Rafa plays efficient tennis in early rounds. But he plays what many would call "gladiator/last man standing" tennis and what I would call passive tennis in the crunch of a tournament. Murray is worse because he has no desire at all to end a point. If Rafa played efficient tennis in the crunch, I'd have a completely different opinion. But he doesn't. He takes his foot off the throttle and plays a game of attrition. Fortunately, Federer won't engage him in this way, but unfortunately Murray (no options) and Djokovic (extremely versatile) will.

I've been critical of Federer since he was in his Mama's womb, but I have newfound respect for him for continuing to play his game. #1 in the world in 2012 at age 31...hard to argue with that.

I would disagree. Look at the AO 2012 final for example. He was playing very offensive tennis for most of the match. Even when he went down 0-40 in the fourth set on his serve, all three of those break points, he murdered the ball. He did the same in the 2010 US Open. He played very aggressive tennis throughout, even in the semis and the finals. He maybe plays more passive tennis in the finals of clay tourneys, but that's because it's his best way to win. It's how he crushes people in short amounts of time.

I'll throw something else at you. first of all I love watching Fed. I guess my biggest problem with him were his fans at the time seeing Fed as God. when I say his fans I think about people posting on MTF. It's not Fed's fault that he turned out to be some sort of cult. That episode with Nike making him wear that idiotic golden purse was just so stupid and over the top. I couldn't stop laughing.

I just don't understand why some people need to worship someone or something. Seriously, the moment Djokovic wins, let's say 20 slams and having all army of fans, I won't be that interested. I became his fan because I found him so funny when he was very young. I hate to say this, but I'm not even interested what Nole does at masters any more. I was happy he lost to Haas. bad fan . Nole looks a like blood killer if he feels like it nowadays.

I actually miss that young Nole who was so silly. Nowadays, he is a big star. He doesn't show any emotions on the court any more, he doesn't bounce the ball... he is being super nice to everyone. I do remember very well a young Fed who was so neurotic and then somehow he just calmed down and started winning everything. darn I want what Nole and Fed are having

I think we are all same. It doesn't matter if you you are a janitor or a an engineer or the Queen of England. someone has to do all of those jobs. but somehow, you make more money, you have a bigger house, you are better. not in my book. Again, I'm looking really badly to find some new kid to support. the problem is, I don't have as much time to follow challengers and futures any more.

The overall thing I'm getting at is, what really is your problem with these people? Rafa in particular. He has the ability to crush shots. He can come up to the net every now and then to finish off a point quickly. He's improved his serve so he can get more aces and service winners. He's beaten many people with 6-0, 6-1, and 6-2 sets, even on hard courts. But you act like it's a bad thing that he has the stamina to be able to play for hours. Yeah, he can push back shots and defend all day and just break down the opponent until they make a ton of unforced errors because they're tired. But he doesn't do that anymore. He hits winners, aces, etc. Will he let a ball go when he can get it? Heck no. Why should he? But I really don't understand what's wrong with that.

Ferrer, Simon, and Monfils I can understand. They are boring to watch for me as well. Especially Simon.

Rafa plays efficient tennis in early rounds. But he plays what many would call "gladiator/last man standing" tennis and what I would call passive tennis in the crunch of a tournament. Murray is worse because he has no desire at all to end a point. If Rafa played efficient tennis in the crunch, I'd have a completely different opinion. But he doesn't. He takes his foot off the throttle and plays a game of attrition. Fortunately, Federer won't engage him in this way, but unfortunately Murray (no options) and Djokovic (extremely versatile) will.

I've been critical of Federer since he was in his Mama's womb, but I have newfound respect for him for continuing to play his game. #1 in the world in 2012 at age 31...hard to argue with that.

I would disagree. Look at the AO 2012 final for example. He was playing very offensive tennis for most of the match. Even when he went down 0-40 in the fourth set on his serve, all three of those break points, he murdered the ball. He did the same in the 2010 US Open. He played very aggressive tennis throughout, even in the semis and the finals. He maybe plays more passive tennis in the finals of clay tourneys, but that's because it's his best way to win. It's how he crushes people in short amounts of time.

Well Rafito, you are one cool dude and my all time favorite Rafa fan for you objectiveness and level headedness. I won't go back and watch past matches, I did enough railing through them at the time. And as for clay, he plays efficient tennis because he doesn't have to tweak his game for one reason or another like he does on hardcourts. To his credit, Rafa is forever tweaking his game on hardcourts. But that's a byproduct of inefficiency. I'll have nothing but praise for Rafa on clay as he gets through his matches quickly.

We'll have to revisit this debate when the tour returns to NA hardcourts (maybe grass(?)). So don't go nowhere, my friend, I'm looking forward to hammering this out with you. I think we'll both benefit from it.

And Alex, you're my all time favorite Nole fan...by default, of course

Lot of interesting things in this thread from all parties. I don't really have much to add that hasn't been said before. For the most part, actually all of it, I have to agree with Bab and Luggy - the lack of variety really kills interest.

The one thing I guess Herc keeps bringing up that I see as the underlying theme is that if winning is the number 1 thing of importance, and you can factor out some main aspects of things that is a recipe for success today, why not emulate that? If you had to extract the top 3 successful attributes of the top 10 players, you'd most likely have some combination of: Killer forehand, Consistency through points and ability to maintain the consistency set after set, hour after hour which is apparently the new definition of athleticism, and probably the serve. Nowhere, and regardless of how often guys like Fed, Tsonga, Gasquet, Haas can work in their slices or volleys into their game, it only eases/helps their game, it's never the defining factors for their success. You take away the slice backhand and volley from Fed's arsenal and arguably he'd still be one of the best and ranked just as high as he is. So a young player like Cilic - who by the way I had a lot of hope for and still do like - who might have had the serve and the wingspan and the flexibility to do something more with his game, would rather learn to improve his fitness and up the consistency of his groundies than anything else. The most successful player and reliable player on tour apart from the top 4 these days is Ferrer, who's a prime example of someone who keeps it simple and wins a lot with it. Can you argue with that? It's tough.

That's just the problem restated the 100th different way. I don't have a solution. The day that variety actually becomes an important factor in someone's success, we'll see more people trying to emulate that. I think guys like Fed, Tsonga, Gasquet, Haas, Nishikori have a little bit of creativity that makes them more exciting to watch but apart from Fed, none of them have had the level of success that the player who wants to be the next big thing can look up to. And even Fed, the basis for a lot of his success, in addition to having an excellent serve, forehand and footwork, is that he is an excellent defender and supremely fit enough to hang around on court long enough in most situations to utilize his skills.

And that leads to my final point which has to do with another excellent point Bab brought up: changes in technology has actually helped clay the most. Of all places, clay is the only surface that has become more interesting over time as we have moved away from moonballing and there's somewhat more time for decent point construction and executing some variety if the players choose to. On the other hand slowing down the rest of the courts has put the emphasis on stamina and the top 4 and Ferrer have benefited by it by that single virtue alone. Each of the top 4 can outlast any variety, any power, and anything that the rest of the field can throw at them 99% of times because they are that much fitter and can hang in there.

Again, until we see some youngsters match that kinda stamina AND bring in some variety on top of that, OR have enough variety that it's enough to elevate them over their physically fitter superiors, I don't see what's there to motivate youngsters to approach the game differently. The alternative is that we have maxed out the limits of physical fitness and last-man-standing capabilities with Nadal and Nole, and those who follow have to find something different to mark themselves.

I had many alternatives when my fave players retired in the past, but when my favorite players retire soonish, I really have doubts that tennis for me will become very uninteresting.

Luckily I had Tommy still playing after Henman retired. But that was the time I really enjoyed tennis, watching other players like Sampras, Rafter, Safin, Agassi, even clay specialist Kuerten, etc etc..

Now its all about fitness and who can endure more grinding. More and more youngsters turning into robots playing same points over and over again. There's really limited variety today.And those who can play all around and various game, are old players.

Slowing down courts is another example of how difficult for new players is to lean more to the all around play.

It feels like I just might lose interest in tennis after Haas retires, being probably the last guy on tour who has the ultimate all around game.It just feels sad, but it is also true.

What could be done to avoid ATP turning into WTA?

Yes, the courts definitely need to be speed up.

Grass should be a lot faster, not so much like in the 90's, but definitely faster than now. USO should be faster, and pretty much the whole USO series should be play in fast hard courts, I would leave AO and IW/Miami in a slow-medium HC. I would also make a longer grass season which apparently will be happening in 2015.